Washington Watchtag:www.aibs.org,2015:/washington-watch2082014-11-13T18:54:47ZFrom the pages of BioScience magazine, the online version of our government affairs column, with discussions of the latest happenings related to our mission.Movable Type 4.38http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2014_11.htmlWhite House Takes Steps on Climate Adaptation, but Path Forward is Uncleartag:www.aibs.org,2014:/washington-watch208.346872014-11-13T18:54:47Z2014-11-12T18:54:00Z ]]>
Kevin ToddAt the start of the Obama presidency, many climate change advocates felt that they had an opportunity to achieve meaningful government action on global warming. Although the House of Representatives passed a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, there was little White House action on this issue during President Obama's first term. Instead, mitigation of and adaptation to climate change largely took a back seat as the president pursued health-care reform. In his second inaugural address, Obama signaled a shift in focus, stating, "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations."

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2014_01.htmlIt's That Time Again: Congress Considers NSF Legislationtag:www.aibs.org,2014:/washington-watch208.338012014-11-13T18:47:46Z2014-01-30T22:17:35Z ]]>
Robert E. GroppBeyond making appropriations to fund federal research programs, Congress is responsible for authorizing the activities and funding levels for federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). Last renewed by the America COMPETES Act reauthorization of 2010, the agency's authorization is set to expire in 2015. In anticipation, Congress has started work on NSF reauthorization legislation.

Amid a sluggish national economy and concomitant contentious political debate about federal budget priorities, some in Congress have questioned in recent years what types of research the government should fund and, periodically, specific research projects. Therefore, as Congress considers the future of the NSF, the science policy community has prepared for potential battles.

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2013_12.htmlLife Science Graduates Face Daunting Labor Markettag:www.aibs.org,2013:/washington-watch208.336792013-12-13T23:12:35Z2013-12-13T22:11:00Z ]]>
Julie Palakovich CarrIn my position as CEO of a firm employing over 80,000 engineers, I can testify that most were excellent engineers. But the factor that most distinguished those who advanced in the organization was the ability to think broadly and read and write clearly.

(Norman Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin)

Biology graduate students have a dizzying array of options after completing their degree, including settling on an initial career path. Although many young biologists hope to make these decisions on the basis of personal preference, changing labor market conditions are likely to influence the decision.

The employment prospects for biologists have changed significantly in recent decades. Until the early 1970s, a person with a doctorate in biology had a good chance of being hired in academia; nearly 70 percent of new PhDs who had a job lined up at graduation went to work in academia. Now, fewer than half of graduates with definitive postdegree plans find employment in academia, according to the federally sponsored Survey on Earned Doctorates. One driver of that precipitous drop was the saturation of the academic labor market as the number of trainees increased.

The Great Recession has taken a toll on employment prospects for graduates. The percentage of recent life science doctoral degree graduates with definite job plans for after graduation fell to its lowest level in more than two decades in 2011. That year, only one in five graduates had secured employment, a reduction of nearly 25 percent from 5 years earlier.

"Unfortunately, recent events have not helped graduates recover from the recession and its impacts," stated Maria Marion, chair of the Employment Concerns Committee of the National Association of Graduate–Professional Students. "Sequestration has cut current and future government funding for research and labs. In turn, these cuts affect employment for students and limit opportunities for future generations of scientists."

The increasing number of recent graduates without firm employment plans coincides with an uptick in the number of people pursuing postdoctoral studies. Even prior to the recession, the life sciences had the highest percentage of recent PhDs pursuing postdoctoral studies.

"The number-one concern I hear from postdocs and graduate students is that they are not sure that they want to stay in academia," said Keith Micoli, director of the postdoctoral program at New York University School of Medicine and a member of the board of directors for the National Postdoctoral Association. "There are not enough jobs in academia, but many students are not sure how to prepare for another career."

Doctoral graduates are increasingly looking for careers in other sectors, according to National Science Foundation (NSF) data. The problem, according to some, is that many of these jobs do not fully leverage the research skills of a doctoral scientist. Only 40 percent of new PhDs with employment plans at the time of graduation say that research will be their primary activity.

Declining federal investments in research and development may be affecting employment in science. Fewer research grants to universities and research institutions mean fewer opportunities for young researchers, according to a recent report from the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). In their 2013 survey, 53 percent of the respondents—overwhelmingly consisting of faculty and primary investigators—have recently turned away promising young researchers who were interested in working in their labs.

"From the data and anecdotes I've heard, the next generation of scientists are thinking critically about whether to continue on this career path," said Benjamin Corb, public affairs director for ASBMB. "Today's scientists are resilient and determined to find a way through this.... But what about the next generation in school now? What happens when they see the lack of support? That scares me."

Some graduate students who completed the ASBMB survey voiced doubts about their future career options. "It is disheartening to be at the start of what I hope will be a strong and successful scientific career and have to wonder if I will even get a job, be able to fund my research, and have hope of being a competitive scientist," said one graduate student in California.

The changing nature of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) labor market has, for some time, been triggering calls for change in the way graduate students are prepared for their careers. In 1998, the National Research Council released its Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists report, which called for a new way of educating graduate students. "The future health of the life sciences depends on our continuing to attract the most talented students. That will require that students be realistically informed at the beginning of their training of their chances of achieving their career goals and that faculty recognize that current employment opportunities are different," stated the report (p. 4).

More recently, a 2012 report from the Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group—convened by the National Institutes of Health—called for an overhaul of how biomedical researchers are trained. "Graduate training continues to be aimed almost exclusively at preparing people for academic research positions." The working group "believes that graduate programs must accommodate a greater range of anticipated careers for students. Graduate programs should reflect that range and offer opportunities for students to explore a variety of options while in graduate school without adding to the length of training."

The buzz term for such skills is T-shaped scientists. Such researchers have a depth of knowledge in one scientific discipline as well as broader skills in communication, computation, and project management. New professional science master's degrees are one way in which institutions have responded to calls to train graduates for careers in the business, government, and nonprofit sectors. There are now more than 300 such programs at 130 institutions in the United States.

For those seeking a more traditional science degree, several federal programs are aimed at preparing graduate students with the communication and personal skills to succeed in research or a related career. The NSF's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, which will soon be transformed into the new NSF Research Traineeships program, transcends scientific disciplinary boundaries. Many of the approximately 150 IGERT programs incorporate opportunities for graduate students to learn broader skills through mentoring other students and communicating with the public.

Other opportunities are more direct in training early-career scientists for jobs outside of academia. The John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship, sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, provides current and recent graduates with the opportunity to work for 1 year in the government on policy issues related to ocean, coastal, and fisheries management.

The Knauss fellowship and more than 100 other STEM education programs for K–12, undergraduate, and graduate students were proposed for consolidation or elimination by the Obama administration as part of its fiscal year 2014 budget request. The White House claimed that this reorganization would "cut back lower-priority programs to make room for targeted increases," in other STEM education programs and reduce fragmentation of STEM programs across the government. Members of Congress were not receptive to the changes. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have publicly expressed displeasure with the plan and are not likely to allow the reorganization, which requires congressional support, to proceed.

However, career opportunities in STEM fields still offer rewarding prospects. According to the US Department of Commerce, PhDs working in STEM fields earn about 12 percent more than their counterparts in other fields. Moreover, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that PhD-level jobs in biology will increase by 6 percent this decade.

Maria Marion offers the following advice to graduate students hoping for a competitive edge: "Dare to be different." Although standard academic expectations remain, such as publishing and presenting at conferences, employers are increasingly looking for people who have worked on multidisciplinary projects or who have had unique experiences teaching or volunteering with K–12 students. "Doing something that feels very different from your dissertation may just be the thing you need to stand out," Marion said.

BioScience 63: 922
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.3

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2013_09.htmlHarnessing the Power of Big Data in Biological Researchtag:www.aibs.org,2013:/washington-watch208.334642013-09-11T20:34:39Z2013-09-11T03:37:15Z ]]>
Eve S. McCullochFrom the dawn of civilization to 2003, humankind generated five exabytes [5 billion gigabytes] of data. Now we produce five exabytes every two days ... and the pace is accelerating. —Eric Schmidt, executive chairman at Google, quoted in R. Smolan and J. Erwitt, eds. 2012. The Human Face of Big Data. Against All Odds Productions.

A data revolution is changing the face of science. Scientists are confronting research challenges that require the analysis of large amounts of information on topics ranging from global climate patterns to genetic blueprints. These big data challenges are often summarized in four words: volume, variety, velocity, and veracity. Managing these four parameters could unlock revolutionary new applications, tap the potential of crowdsourcing, and produce a new way of doing science.

Scientists struggle to capture, curate, share, analyze, and visualize continuously generated data. In March 2012, the White House announced the Big Data Research and Development Initiative, committing more than $200 million to accelerate scientific discovery, strengthen national security, and transform education. Six federal departments and agencies are participating in the initiative. In addition, the Obama administration released the Open Data Policy, promising to make information generated by the federal government—including health care data (e.g., the Health Data Initiative)—more accessible to innovators, researchers, and the public.

Genetic research is facing data challenges. It is now possible for a single investigator to generate volumes of DNA-sequence data that a decade ago required a network of major sequencing centers. These data hold clues to everything from curing cancer to developing superior crop varieties, but these advances will not be realized without better analytical tools.

Federally funded teams from Iowa State, Stanford, Virginia Tech, and the University of Michigan are among those developing biocomputing toolboxes. The goal, stated in their project summary, "is to empower the broader community to benefit from clever parallel algorithms, highly tuned implementations, and specialized high-performance computing hardware, without requiring expertise in any of these."

Genetic information combined with health care data could revolutionize medicine—reducing costs and improving outcomes through increased treatment efficiency and medical innovation. The variety of health care data, however, is a significant obstacle to integration: Pharmaceutical companies, health care providers, and public stakeholders have huge stores of medical data. However, according to a recent report by McKinsey and Company—a global for-profit consulting firm—the US health care industry could potentially save $300 billion to $450 billion a year (12–17 percent of health care costs) with systemwide integration of health care data.

Other fields are also confronting big data. "[Individual] ecologists are already collectively producing big data... but we are not harnessing its power," stated Stephanie Hampton and her coauthors in a recent publication in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (doi:10.1890/120103). They posited that data, themselves, are important products of research: "to address major environmental challenges [researchers] will [have to] leverage their expertise by leveraging their data."

The promise of open-access big data is evident in the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Once it is fully operational, NEON will produce colossal data sets, capturing changes in the biosphere, the geosphere, the hydrosphere, and the atmosphere, using measurements of 539 variables taken continuously at 106 locations nationwide from 2017 to 2047. Its potential applications are tremendous.

Researchers are increasingly tapping the potential of big data from scientific collections and other sources. The United States has more than 1600 biological collections and a billion specimens. The Network Integrated Biocollections Alliance is an initiative developed by the scientific community that is focused on mobilizing a sustained, large-scale digitization effort to answer critical questions about the environment, human health, biosecurity, commerce, and the biological sciences. "Data are much more easily accessed through a central portal than through ... separate institutions, and this is a huge benefit to scientists," explained Larry Page, project director at iDigBio, a National Science Foundation-funded organization enabling the digitization and sharing of data from all US biological collections.

Big data could change what scientists know and how they do science. Rather than analyzing data to answer a particular question, creative data mining may allow data to inspire questions—opening the door for hypothesis-generating as well as hypothesis-driven science.

Obstacles to the realization of big data science remain. "For most researchers, there is no clear reward system for sharing data," says Hampton. "It takes a lot of time to prepare data for sharing and a lot of money to archive it well," although, Hampton adds, "there is a very vocal group of mostly early-career scientists who want science to be open ... [and who are] reconsidering the paradigm of publishing and knowledge transfer more generally." Ethical questions and technical issues are also challenging. Logistically, however, programmers are producing tools to manage large volumes of rapidly delivered data. Alliances between the public and private sectors may quicken this enterprise.

Big data initiatives also face funding challenges. Budget sequestration is hitting agencies hard. Funding for basic government operations is constrained, so funding for new initiatives may require persistent advocacy from the scientific community and stakeholder groups who will use big data.

BioScience 63: 715
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2013_05.htmlBalancing Privacy and Progress: Biobanks and Genome Sequencingtag:www.aibs.org,2013:/washington-watch208.331762013-05-20T15:50:48Z2013-05-20T15:22:20Z ]]>
Eve S. McCullochGenome sequencing coupled with medical and personal data holds enormous promise for unraveling the mysteries of the human body and advancing disease treatment. Increasingly, research projects are collecting data on large numbers of people to determine links among diseases, lifestyle, environment, and genes. The biobanks being created with these data raise questions about protecting the privacy of individuals whose DNA and medical records fuel research.

Repositories of human genetic material emerged more than a decade ago in Iceland with the company deCODE genetics. The United Kingdom has created a biobank with 500,000 enrolled volunteers. In the United States, researchers at Kaiser Permanente have revealed early findings based on a treasure trove of genetic and medical data collected from 100,000 Californians. This effort, establishing perhaps the largest biobank in the United States, has already shown new links between disease traits and genetic variants.

"One of the things that is becoming obvious is that genomes are far more variable from individual to individual than we thought even 5 years ago," said Joshua Meyer, a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon Health and Science University, where he works on chromosomal rearrangements with potential applications in cancer research. "Mapping those variations is really important if we are going to realize the medical dream of personal genomics."

The emergence of low-cost genome sequencing is opening doors across many fields of research, and it all depends on access. "We need more and bigger databases to figure out how to help people, and yet, more and bigger databases mean greater threats to people's privacy," stated Meyer.

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues sought to address this challenge with its October 2012 report, Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing. The report called for formal policies to address ethical dilemmas raised by genome sequencing, particularly for policymakers to create privacy protections governing how genomic data can be collected, stored, and shared. Presently, these data are treated differently depending on who took the sample for sequencing and the state in which it was taken. In many places, they can be used without the patient's knowledge or consent.

"These are just a few discrepancies in public policy that can create confusion and uncertainty when it comes to understanding how to protect some of our most personal data," said Commission Chair Amy Gutmann. "Confusion and uncertainty tend to erode trust, and trust is the key to amassing the large number of genomic data sets needed to make powerful, life-saving discoveries."

A study published in January 2013 in the journal Science (Gymrek et al. 2013) highlighted additional complications. Using public data sets and online resources such as genealogy Web sites—and without violating present federal privacy regulations—Whitehead Institute geneticist Yaniv Erlich and his colleagues deduced the names of dozens of supposedly anonymous individuals who had contributed DNA for medical or scientific research. The report "calls into question whether the goal of [the] complete deidentification of many types of human data is realistic in today's information-rich society," stated an accompanying commentary (Rodriguez et al. 2013).

Privacy is a two-sided coin. In addition to issues regarding data access, there is also controversy surrounding incidental findings, which are unexpected but potentially important information discovered as a byproduct of an experiment on some other topic. For example, genome sequencing may reveal that a donor faces a substantial risk of a serious but treatable health condition. The Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues made no recommendations regarding the return of incidental findings, other than to advise that DNA contributors be informed of their possibility and whether they would be returned.

In contrast, a National Institutes of Health working group released explicit recommendations (Wolf et al. 2012). They called on biobanks to shoulder the responsibility for communicating pertinent findings to DNA donors, instead of the researcher and associated institution generating the result—as has traditionally been argued.

Some experts in the field, however, have called for flexibility. US biobanks—of which there are over 600—vary in a number of ways, including their size, their funding sources, and the types and sources of DNA samples held in them, according to a recent study (Henderson et al. 2013). "Given the diversity in biobank organizational characteristics identified in our survey, it's likely that management and governance policies will have to be tailored to fit the particular context," concluded Gail Henderson, lead author of the study and head of University of North Carolina's Center for Genomics and Society. "One-size policies will not fit all."

Resolving the issues associated with personal genetic data will not be easy. New regulations will likely be required, and the recommendations of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues may provide a starting point for policymakers in the quest for genome privacy.

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2013_01.htmlResearchers Take on a New Role: Advocate for Profession, Sciencetag:www.aibs.org,2013:/washington-watch208.328182013-01-11T04:51:25Z2013-01-12T04:33:46Z ]]>
Julie Palakovich CarrScientists pride themselves on being objective purveyors of information. For some, this may seem at odds with delving into the world of public policy, where politics and spin seemingly reign supreme. For others, advocating on behalf of their profession and speaking up about the importance of science is model behavior for researchers.

"Collaboration between our leading experts in science and technology and Congress and federal agencies is the only way that public policy decisions will be made using sound science," said Senator Jay Rockefeller (D–WV), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, in a statement. "When drafting policy or regulations, we need to solicit advice from a spectrum of experts—from universities, nonprofits, industry, or scientific and professional societies—who deal in the issues every day."

Of course, scientific knowledge is not the only factor weighed by lawmakers (politics and personal values also play an important role) but science can and should be part of the decisionmaking equation, according to those who work both inside and outside the system.

Members of the biological sciences community are stepping up across the nation to participate in the legislative process. Their engagement spans a range of activities, including meeting with lawmakers in the nation's capital, consulting with local decisionmakers, and participating in letter-writing campaigns.

Lida Beninson, a PhD candidate in integrative physiology at the University of Colorado, became involved in science policy after doing coursework on the topic. She met with the Colorado congressional delegation last year in Washington, DC, as part of the Congressional Visits Day organized by the Biological and Ecological Sciences Coalition, a group co-chaired by AIBS and the Ecological Society of America.

Beninson found that most congressional staff were easy to talk to and receptive to her request for sustained support for federal investments in biology. The best experience for Beninson, however, was talking to staffers who challenged her viewpoint. She found these lively discussions about the state of science interesting and helpful to her effort to understand how best to communicate with policymakers. "The people who push back a little are the ones who are really listening to your case," said Beninson.

Beninson plans to stay active in science policy. "We're in danger of losing federal support for science," she said. "More and more congressional decisions depend on scientific guidance. It was gratifying to see that my expertise in science could benefit the field in a broader way."

Researchers have also found ways to get involved in policy outside of the nation's capital. Stephen Vives, professor and chair of the Department of Biology at Georgia Southern University, organized a tour of his department for Representative John Barrow (D–GA). The congressman visited the construction site of the campus' new biological science building. In addition to learning about the facility's green-building features, Representative Barrow was keen to learn about the research being conducted by faculty members. Vives used the annual Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event last August as the prompt for reaching out to Barrow.

"Although I was a little bit nervous about the visit, Congressman Barrow made it easy," said Vives. "He asked questions and was very engaging. It was a nice conversation. I would encourage others to get involved. We need to get our story out and make it easier for our [elected] representatives to communicate the value of research."

Scott Collins, a regents' professor of biology at the University of New Mexico, has been an active participant in congressional meetings, science briefings, and letter-writing campaigns. "Everything we do depends on what happens in Congress," said Collins. "As a community, we have not been very effective in getting our message across."

Although Collins recognizes that each individual letter may not always have an impact in Congress, collective action by researchers does. "Congress makes a lot of decisions about ecology, and scientists need to be at the table when decisions are made," said Collins.

The involvement of researchers is especially important in terms of federal investments in science, according to Collins. "If Congress does not hear from the scientific community about funding [for science], it is that much easier for our programs to be cut" during the congressional appropriations process.

The 113th Congress convenes this month, during which lawmakers will begin to debate numerous policies that will affect biological research and education. How beneficial or detrimental those policies are will depend, in part, on the input of the scientific community.

BioScience 63: 12
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2012_09.htmlNew Farm Bill Could Have Devastating Effects on Water Qualitytag:www.aibs.org,2012:/washington-watch208.324832012-09-10T20:05:37Z2012-09-10T19:46:45Z ]]>
Adrienne Froelich SponbergAgricultural nonpoint-source pollution has repeatedly been cited as a leading cause of degraded water quality in water bodies ranging from tributaries to coastal estuaries. Approximately 40 percent of US agricultural land—roughly 15 percent of all the land in the United States—is enrolled in farm bill conservation programs aimed at improving soil retention and reducing nutrient pollution. But as Congress looks for ways to reduce discretionary funding, these conservation programs are on the chopping block in the 2012 reauthorization of the bill. The impact on water quality could be devastating.

The conservation title of the farm bill cost $844 million in fiscal year (FY) 2012. Although there are many conservation programs within the bill, one of the most widely known is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The goal of the CRP, which has existed in various forms since the Agriculture Act of 1954, is to counteract erosion by providing rental payments and cost-share assistance to landowners who take sensitive land out of production. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D–MI), chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, credits CRP for preventing in 2012 a repeat of the 1930s Dust Bowl that devastated the American Southwest: "The soil, while it was dry, stayed on the ground because [of] the Conservation Reserve Program."

The impact of the CRP in reducing nonpoint-source pollution has been substantial. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute estimates that in FY 2010, the CRP reduced the nitrogen leaving fields by 95 percent (607 million pounds), and phosphorus by 86 percent (122 million pounds). The US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency estimates that CRP lands retained 220 million tons of sediment in that same period. Despite its successes, the CRP will continue downsizing as legislators continue to lower the cap on acres that can be enrolled. The CRP lost 7 million acres in the 2008 farm bill, and another 7 million acres went on the chopping block in the 2012 farm bill, bringing the cap to 25 million acres by 2017.

Senator Pat Roberts (R–KS), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, made it clear that trimming the budget was a key priority of the committee: "The Senate Agriculture Committee voluntarily wrote and reported a bill that provides $23.6 billion in deficit reduction.... We are the first authorizing committee to produce that kind of mandatory budget savings, and it was voluntary."

Conservation groups are concerned that the conservation programs, which account for only 7 percent of the farm bill's estimated $1 trillion price tag over the next 10 years, took a disproportionate share of the reductions. As the Senate began deliberation on the bill, 523 individuals and organizations requested in a letter that senators hold the line on conservation title funding. The groups argued that the funding levels the committee approved in April demonstrate that conservation "is already contributing more than its fair share to budget deficit reduction."

Even as the Senate debates the future of conservation programs, the programs are already taking a hit through the FY 2013 appropriations process. At a March subcommittee hearing, Representative Jack Kingston (R–GA), chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, took aim at the CRP: "CRP is something like 10 percent of the crop acreage, but it is 50 percent of the expenditure.... People are getting a monthly check and they decided they like the program. I think we need to look at it." Ranking member Sam Farr (D–CA) offered his own twist on the usual disparagement of paying people not to farm: "We ought not be paying people for not farming on land they shouldn't be farming" in the first place.

The debate over acreage caps could be moot, however, as prices for corn rise, prompting farmers to opt out of their CRP contracts. In the past year alone, the program has lost 1.5 million acres. The current total of 28 million acres is the lowest amount of enrolled acreage since 1988. Given the importance of CRP lands to wildlife such as migratory birds, conservation groups are keeping close tabs on these land-use changes. "The rate at which native grassland, particularly in our nation's prairies, is being converted rivals any in recent history," said Ducks Unlimited's chief conservation officer Paul Schmidt. "The results could be disastrous for this continent's waterfowl and wildlife."

BioScience 62: 797
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2012_07.htmlData Show that Federal Investment in Research Pays Dividendstag:www.aibs.org,2012:/washington-watch208.323352012-07-10T16:05:55Z2012-07-10T05:41:03Z ]]>
Julie Palakovich CarrIn 1990, the federal government formally launched an ambitious initiative to sequence the human genome, to identify all the genes in human DNA, and to develop the tools to store and allow access to this information. The effort took 13 years and cost the federal government $3.8 billion. As is evidenced by technological advancements, the cultivation of new lines of research, and countless subsequent scientific discoveries, the Human Genome Project (HGP) was a success by nearly all measures. A question of interest to policymakers, however, is what the economic return on this kind of federal investment is.

The HGP generated great prosperity, according to a 2011 report by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice. Between 1988 and 2010, human genome sequencing and associated activities by private industry and researchers generated $796 billion in US economic output. This represents a return on investment of $141 for every $1 spent by the government. The HGP has also generated an estimated 3.8 million job-years of employment and increased government revenue. As was reported by the Battelle group, the genomics-enabled industry generated more than $3.7 billion in federal taxes and $2.3 billion in state and local taxes in 2010 alone. "Thus in one year, revenues returned to government nearly equaled the entire 13-year investment in the HGP," states the report.

Beyond economic benefits, the HGP has influenced and benefited numerous disciplines outside genomics. From human health to agriculture and forensics, the discoveries and methods resulting from the project have generated numerous societal benefits. No one could have anticipated how revolutionary the project would be in improving human health, feeding the planet, fueling society, and remediating degraded environments.

"From a simple return on investment, the financial stake made in mapping the entire human genome is clearly one of the best uses of taxpayer dollars the US government has ever made," said Greg Lucier, chief executive officer of Life Technologies, whose foundation sponsored Battelle's analysis. "Now we sit at the dawn of the 'Genomics Revolution' and all humankind will reap the benefits as we transfer what we now know about the human genome into major breakthroughs.... These major advancements are rapidly creating multiple new industries and companies and those companies are creating quality jobs for thousands of people."

Of course, the HGP is just one example of government-backed science. The broader and more important issue is the economic track record for federal research and development (R&D) as a whole.

"R&D is central to economic growth," states Fred Block, a research professor at the University of California, Davis. Block's research on the economic effects of government investments in R&D demonstrates the importance of federally sponsored science. From 1948 to 2007, the output per unit of labor at private businesses grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent. More than half of that growth can be attributed to multifactor productivity "or the increase of knowledge that comes from R&D," states Block.

Vijay Vaitheeswaran, an editor for The Economist and the author of a new book on the future of innovation, argues that about 80 percent of US gross domestic product comes from services and activities, including R&D—not the physical production of products.

Accounting for the economic outputs of R&D is no easy task. That is why the federal government has launched an initiative to measure the outcomes of research. The Science and Technology for America's Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) initiative aims to track economic outputs, such as jobs and the creation of new companies, resulting from federally funded research. Scientific outcomes, such as publications and patents, will also be tracked. The project is still in the early stages, but it promises to create the necessary digital infrastructure to link science funding with outcomes.

Even without the detailed information that STAR METRICS aims to provide, ample evidence exists to make a strong case for the economic returns from federally funded science. "We have powerful evidence of R&D, but funding is moving in the wrong direction," said Block. Declining investments in science will impair the nation's ability to innovate and prosper in the future. "We're eating our seed corn."

The economic recession should not be used as an excuse to defer investments in science, according to Vaitheeswaran. The government invested in America during the Great Depression, investments that later fueled the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s. "Great economies, like great companies, invest during a downturn," said Vaitheeswaran.

Watch a video of a recent briefing for policymakers on the benefits of federally funded research and development. The event was organized by an interdisciplinary group of scientific organizations, including the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which publishes BioScience. The video is available atwww.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6y_ P2vUfg&feature=youtu.be.

BioScience 62: 631
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2012_02.htmlWhite House Begins to Map Course toward Bio-Based Economytag:www.aibs.org,2012:/washington-watch208.319422012-02-01T05:35:36Z2012-02-02T04:30:08Z ]]>
Robert E. GroppPoliticians and pundits clogged the airwaves last year with rhetoric about the state of the nation's economy. Amid this noise, a few economic policy initiatives did begin to take shape. For instance, last fall, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a request for comments on a draft policy to stimulate the bioeconomy.

Scientists have long asserted that research is an investment that yields economic prosperity. A growing number of scientists and engineers have more recently advised that the biological sciences are poised to inspire transformative discoveries that can solve persistent problems while stimulating new economic opportunities. Indeed, in 2009, the National Research Council (NRC) released a 112-page report, A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution, which offered recommendations intended to harness the potential of the biological sciences to solve society's grand challenges in the areas of energy, environment, food, and health.

The NRC report received a tepid response from many in the research community. Some scientists and agency research managers felt that the report stated the obvious or failed to make a compelling argument for fundamental research or specific lines of research. Many in the science-policy community, however, welcomed the report as a useful tool for triggering an important policy discussion.

To a degree, the NRC report provided a roadmap for policymakers interested in cultivating a bioeconomy. In September 2011, President Obama announced his intent to develop a National Bioeconomy Blueprint, a framework that would identify government actions to harness biological research innovations to address national challenges in health, food, energy, and the environment. It appears, therefore, that policymakers, including those in the White House, are indeed considering the roadmap offered by the NRC.

"Biological research underpins the foundation of a significant portion of our economy. By better leveraging our national investments in biological research and development, the Administration will grow the jobs of the future and improve the lives of all Americans," the OSTP stated in a Federal Register notice soliciting public input on the draft plan. "Twenty-first century advances in biological research and technologies are poised to return tremendous public benefits ... advances in human-genome-informed personalized medicine and data analytics could be combined to improve human health in novel ways. In bio-based industry, biological design can create new opportunities for biofuels, chemicals, materials, and energy-efficient manufacturing processes," wrote the OSTP.

According to administration documents from last fall, the National Bioeconomy Blueprint will identify, among other things, strategies to meet grand challenges, promote commercialization and entrepreneurship, focus research and development investments in areas that will provide the foundation for the bioeconomy, and expand workforce training to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Some scientists have been concerned that a bioeconomy policy focus during a period of significant federal budget pressure could threaten investments in fundamental scientific research, such as that supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, others see opportunity on the horizon. This camp suggests that the OSTP's initiative demonstrates that policy-makers recognize that investing in the biological sciences is in our national interest.

Biology is "integral to understanding and solving the challenges of sustainable food production, reversing damage to our natural resources, developing alternatives to fossil fuels, and moving toward health care that takes an individual's environment and microbiome into account," states Nadine Lymn, director of public affairs for the Ecological Society of America. "A national focus on harnessing biological research to meet these challenges offers an opportunity to strengthen resources for the biological community," Lymn asserts. Investments in the NSF would have to be included, because it funds the foundational research that leads to the discoveries that inform developments in the bioeconomy.

Even scientists who are eager to embrace the bioeconomy concept worry about how a national policy might affect science and society. Karl Glasener, director of science policy for the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America, says that "crop scientists are interested in developing biocrops through both plant breeding and genetic manipulation that are best suited for conversion to ethanol." However, Glasener warns, soil scientists "are concerned that any effort to develop a bioeconomy not compromise the environment." Many soil and environmental scientists worry that a push to generate biofuels or other products from crop residues could lead to soil erosion, loss of organic matter, and water-quality issues.

Glasener believes that the OSTP is genuinely interested in obtaining answers to specific questions that can inform bioeconomy policy development. Some policy experts suggest, however, that an ongoing process for considering new issues and concerns and refining policy objectives is necessary to ensure public confidence in whatever bioeconomy policy the nation may pursue.

BioScience 62: 121
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.5

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2012_01.htmlWill Lawmakers Reform Immigration Rules for STEM Graduates?tag:www.aibs.org,2012:/washington-watch208.318732012-01-12T01:34:41Z2012-01-13T00:30:06Z ]]>
Julie Palakovich CarrRanjini Prithviraj is at the start of a promising career in neuroscience. She is a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), serves as an editor on the NIH Fellows Editorial Board, and mentors students interested in careers in science. Despite her strong résumé and her PhD in cell and molecular biology from a well-regarded American university, Prithviraj's ability to continue to work in the United States is uncertain, because she was born in India and raised in Dubai.

"I would like to stay in the US long term, but I'm not sure as of now," said Prithviraj. "The reason I'm not sure is because the US makes it so hard for us foreign nationals to get a green card, irrespective of how qualified we are."

The dilemma faced by Prithviraj and other foreign-born graduates with an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) is that they must either wait for years for the chance to attain permanent residency in the United States or return abroad. Under current immigration policy, there is no direct path from graduation from an American university to permanent residency. Instead, many graduates use a temporary visa to work in the United States while they wait for a green card. The process can take years—even up to a decade. During this time, visa holders may be unable to seek promotions, move to a new city, or change jobs.

"The world's best and brightest aren't begging to be let into the United States any more," said Vivek Wadhwa, director of research at Duke University's Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization, at a recent hearing held by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. "They often have better opportunities in their home countries than they have in the US. We can't take it for granted that everyone wants to come here; we have to start competing for the best global talent."

For the time being, the United States is still the top destination for students from abroad. America's edge, however, is shrinking. In 2006, 20 percent of foreign students worldwide attended US universities, down from 25 percent in 2000. Despite this decline, temporary residents still make up a sizable proportion of US STEM graduates: 24 percent of master's degree recipients and 33 percent of doctoral degree recipients in 2007.

Although most of these graduates plan to stay in the United States after completing their degrees, the percentage of doctoral recipients who actually stay in the country is dropping. For the doctoral class of 2002, 62 percent were still in the country five years later. This figure is slightly lower than the five-year stay rate for the class of 2000, although it is higher than that of the previous decade.

Despite high retention of STEM graduates, lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum are concerned about the roughly 40 percent of foreign graduates who leave the country after their training is complete. Congressional Democrats and Republicans have floated legislation to reform immigration policies to address this issue.

"It makes no sense for us to educate the world's brightest students and then ship them back to their home countries to compete against us," stated Representative Zoe Lofgren (D–CA), ranking member of the House's Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, in a press release. Lofgren, whose district includes part of Silicon Valley, is the sponsor of legislation (HR 2161) that would help American companies attract and retain the best and the brightest workers by empowering these companies to seek green cards for graduates with an advanced STEM degree from an American university.

Representative Jeff Flake (R–AZ) has proposed legislation (HR 399) that would offer permanent residency to foreign-born students who earn a PhD in a STEM field from an American university and who have an offer of employment. Flake's bill, known as the STAPLE Act, would "staple a green card to every diploma," notes the Congressman. "Unless we want to see the next Google or Intel created overseas, we've got to enact legal immigration reforms that allow foreign-born, US-educated students who have earned advanced degrees to remain and work in the country after they've graduated," said Flake in a statement issued by his office. HR 399 has drawn bipartisan support from more than a dozen cosponsors.

Despite some bipartisan rhetoric, the future of immigration reform for skilled STEM workers is uncertain. The largest hurdle is likely to be that congressional action will probably be tied to the issue of illegal immigration, a debate that has been stalled for years.

According to proponents, synthetic biology offers great promise. Some scientists suggest that the emerging field could lead to advancements in individualized medicine, more efficient vaccine and drug production, new renewable energy sources, higher-yielding and more sustainable crops, and organisms that can remediate harmful chemicals in the environment. Synthetic biology is also widely acknowledged to have the potential to adversely affect human health, the environment, and national security.

The possibility for unintended environmental effects concerns Allison Snow, a professor in the Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology at the Ohio State University. Uncontrolled escape of synthetic organisms and the rise of new invasive species are a few of the threats, according to Snow. Given the risks, synthetic organisms will need to be thoroughly evaluated before they are moved outside contained facilities. "Ecological research takes time and funding," Snow said during a public presentation on synthetic biology in July 2010. "This is why risk assessment research shouldn't be left for the last minute. It should go in tandem as the development of these products is moving forward."

Policymakers recognize there are trade-offs between scientific advancement and societal hazard. The same day the Venter Institute's research was published, President Barack Obama directed his newly minted Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to provide him with a report considering the issues surrounding synthetic biology.

The president's bioethics panel released its recommendations in December 2010. The report did not call for a moratorium or additional regulations on synthetic biology research; instead, the panel called for the federal government to develop an ongoing, coordinated mechanism for the evaluation of developments, risks, and oversight in synthetic biology. According to the report, "The Commission believes that the field of synthetic biology can proceed responsibly by embracing a middle ground—an ongoing process of prudent vigilance that carefully monitors, identifies, and mitigates potential and realized harms over time." The commission recommended that this approach be led by a central body, such as the Executive Office of the President.

Currently, oversight of synthetic biology falls within existing government regulations for genetically engineered organisms and biotechnology products. Oversight and enforcement is divided among numerous federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Departments of Transportation and Commerce. Additionally, any deliberate government release of a synthetic or genetically modified organism would be subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

"So far, I think the current system has worked well in the US," says Snow, whose research assesses the ecological risks of transgenic crops. "GMOs [genetically modified organisms] that have been commercialized—mainly corn, soybean, cotton, and canola with just a few new traits—are widely considered to pose few new risks. With synthetic biology, which is an extension of genetic engineering, new GMOs like blue-green algae for biofuels could be more challenging to evaluate. We have less experience with these organisms and the newly invented traits they will have. It would be naïve to assume that regulations will catch every bad idea and prevent it from happening."

Experts in ethics, biosecurity, and law also see cause for concern. Some have raised doubts about society's ability to plan for low-probability, highimpact events, such as the release of a synthetic organism. Doubts linger about gaps in the current regulatory framework to oversee privately funded research, especially that of "do-it-yourselfers" who work outside of agencies, universities, and corporations.

Even if the laws were sufficient to cover synthetic biology products, the more important issue, warns Michael Rodemeyer, is "whether the agencies have the resources and tools they need to both assess the risks of this new technology and to manage the risks as well." Now at the University of Virginia, Rodemeyer was formerly assistant director for environment at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "The challenge, though, particularly as the technology develops will be to develop guidelines that are sufficiently cautionary, but without imposing unnecessarily expensive and cumbersome containment requirements that might hinder research."

It remains to be seen whether or how the federal government will strike a balance between scientific discovery and risk mitigation.

doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.5

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2011_02.htmlNew Congress, Old Climate Rhetoric?tag:www.aibs.org,2011:/washington-watch208.302052011-02-03T03:35:30Z2011-02-03T05:00:00Z ]]>
Robert E. GroppLast month, members of the 112th Congress were sworn into office, making the composition of the new Congress very different from that of the 111th. Although the election is over, it remains unclear whether members of the new Congress will refrain from the vitriolic attacks of the 2010 campaign season long enough to legislate, or if the next two years, as many policy watchers inside the Beltway are speculating, will be dedicated instead to testing arguments for the 2012 elections. Early signals suggest the latter, replete with antiscience rhetoric, may be the case.

The 112th Congress has at least 95 new members in the House of Representatives and 16 in the Senate. A number of these legislators won elections in part by championing ideas that will set some policy discussions back years. According to an assessment by the progressive group Think Progress, 35 of 46 Republicans in the Senate and 125 of 240 Republicans in the House have publicly questioned the science of global climate change.

The newly elected legislators will not be the only roadblock to action, according to some advocates for issues ranging from federal investment in science to adoption of climate change policy. Some of the returning members of Congress have built long and storied careers on questioning science. Senator James Inhofe (R–OK) was recently profiled in the newspaper Roll Call. Reporter John Stanton wrote of Inhofe: "He boasted of his role at international climate change talks last year in Copenhagen, in which he was vilified by virtually the entire world. 'It was really quite enjoyable,' Inhofe said, recalling when he caused a commotion by announcing to attendees that the United States would never ratify a climate change deal. 'I always remember with all those people in the room, hundreds of them, and all the cameras. And they all had one thing in common: They all hated me.'"

Not all Republicans share Inhofe's beliefs or amusements. Yet with each passing year it appears that there are fewer Republican members of Congress willing to embrace or act upon scientific knowledge, particularly when it relates to issues such as climate change.

Two Republican members of the House of Representatives who have publically challenged their colleagues on climate change are not members of the 112th Congress; Representative Vernon Ehlers (R–MI) retired, and Representative Bob Inglis (R–SC) was defeated in a primary election by a tea party candidate. Inglis has warned his colleagues that a focus on criticizing climate science and scientists is unproductive, particularly when the nation's competitors are working to develop next-generation energy sources.

At a climate change hearing last November, however, the then-presumptive new chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Texas Republican Ralph Hall, argued that reasonable people still disagree about the science.

The challenges facing advocates for action on the issue of climate change are great. Representative John Shimkus (R–IL) has used religion to argue against government action on climate change. "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over," Shimkus said during a 2009 congressional hearing. "Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood."

Meanwhile, Inglis asserted that many in South Carolina perceived his newly held position—that climate change is real—as a slip to "Satan's side," as he told Evan Lehmann of the New York Times/ClimateWire. Inglis further explained to Lehmann that his position that atmospheric warming is a scientific certainty was one of three "blasphemies" he committed. Failure to support President Bush's troop surge in Iraq and support for President Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program were the other two.

"For many conservatives, [supporting climate change] became the marker that you had crossed to Satan's side—that you had left God and gone to Satan's side on climate change...because many evangelical Christians in our district would say that it's up to God to determine the length of Earth, and therefore, you are invading the province of God," Inglis told Lehmann.

In this newly divided government, in which the leaders of one chamber owe their political fortune to freshly minted conservatives seemingly at odds with some in their own party, only time will tell whether and how the issues of the day will be addressed.

doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2010_11.htmlMajor Changes in Congress May Mean Major Changes for Science Policytag:www.aibs.org,2010:/washington-watch208.297402010-11-01T14:51:29Z2010-11-02T02:49:02Z ]]>
Julie Palakovich CarrThis month, voters across the nation will head to the polls for the midterm elections. Regardless of the final results, the departure of several long-standing science and education advocates will most likely change the way science is viewed in the 112th Congress.

"The retirements of champions of science, such as Representatives Brian Baird, Bart Gordon, Vern Ehlers, and Dave Obey and the defeats of Senator Arlen Specter and Rep. Alan Mollohan [in primary elections earlier this year] mean the loss of considerable support for science in the Congress," warned Howard J. Silver, executive director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations, in an e-mail interview.

The House Committee on Science and Technology will be hit hardest by these departures: Committee Chair Bart Gordon (D–TN) is retiring after 26 years in Congress. Since becoming chairman in 2007, Gordon twice championed the America COMPETES (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act, the law that aims to stimulate innovation and improve science education by increasing funding authorizations for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies that support basic research.

The leadership of several House science subcommittees will also change. The top Democrat and Republican on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will leave Congress in December. Chairman Brian Baird (D–WA), a clinical psychologist, is retiring; Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R–SC) was defeated in a runoff election during the Republican primary. Subcommittee on Research and Science Education Ranking Member Vernon Ehlers (R–MI), a physicist, is also retiring after 17 years in Congress.

Collectively, the House science panel will lose at least 50 years of congressional experience. "Representatives Gordon, Ehlers and Baird will be missed," said Samuel M. Rankin III, associate executive director of the American Mathematical Society. "They all understand the value of federal support for science research, are strong advocates for science, and are willing to work across party lines to gain support for legislation impacting science research and education."

Unlike many congressional committees, the House Committee on Science and Technology was able to maintain a degree of bipartisanship under Gordon's leadership. According to a committee press release, all of the committee's bills passed by the House in the past four years have had bipartisan support. With ever-increasing partisanship on Capitol Hill, it is unclear whether this tradition of bipartisanship will remain the norm in the new Congress.

The loss of these members leaves the future uncertain for many of the issues they have advocated. "Reps. Baird and Ehlers have been particularly important for the promotion and defense of peer review and the social and behavioral sciences," Silver said. "Reps. Gordon and Ehlers have been key supporters of improving science education."

Federal investments in science could also be in jeopardy. Representative David Obey (D–WI), chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, is retiring after 21 terms in Congress. As chairman, he worked to increase funding for science and education, including major investments in medical research. Additionally, Representative Alan Mollohan (D–WV), who was defeated in a Democratic primary, will no longer lead the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations, in which he worked to increase funding for the NSF and NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Senator Arlen Specter (D–PA), who switched party affiliation last year, was defeated in his first Democratic primary race. A force behind the effort to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Specter successfully lobbied for the inclusion of $10.4 billion for the NIH in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The biggest uncertainty in the future of federal science funding may be a desire by members of both political parties to reduce spending. "The continued emphasis on deficit reduction will likely constrain science funding no matter what political situation we face in the 112th Congress," Silver said. "We hope that new champions emerge to replace those who will no longer be there to thwart attacks on science and peer review."

Others in the scientific community share Silver's hope that new leaders will emerge. "The departure of these champions for science will leave big shoes to fill and provides an opportunity for the scientific community to encourage other Members of Congress to assume leadership roles and cultivate broad support for science," commented Adam P. Fagen, public affairs director for the American Society of Plant Biologists.

Philippe Cohen, of Stanford University's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, also recognizes the need for scientists to engage with the new Congress. "Scientists will need to maintain a high profile in the development of science policy at every level of government and education," he said. "To do otherwise is to abdicate our responsibilities to a society that has invested heavily in our careers."

doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2010_10.htmlCongress Learns about 21st Century Biologytag:www.aibs.org,2010:/washington-watch208.296262010-10-01T11:44:01Z2010-10-01T10:13:33Z ]]>
Robert E. GroppLast year, the National Research Council (NRC) issued A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution. Described by some scientists as biology's "moon shot," the 112-page report makes a case for new research and funding models that can stimulate fundamental discovery and solve complex problems in the areas of environment, energy, agriculture, and health. Policymakers have since begun to consider the report's recommendations.

In June, shortly after the House of Representatives passed its version of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010—legislation to reauthorize the National Science Foundation (NSF) and several other federal science programs—the chamber's Subcommittee on Research and Science Education convened a hearing to examine the future of the biological sciences. Spurred in part by the NRC report, the hearing considered how potential scientific advances can be translated into technologies that benefit society, and how to prepare researchers to thrive in areas of research that do not fit easily into a single academic department.

In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Lipinski (D–IL) shared an amusing and informative recollection: "Biology was not my favorite subject in high school—although that may be because it was first semester freshman year and we had to dissect the fetal pig—the new, 21st century biology has me much more interested. I was trained as a mechanical engineer, and when I hear people talking about cells as a systems design problem, I understand the important role of engineers and physicists working in biology."

Testifying before the panel, James P. Collins suggested that biology "will flourish in the 21st century by sustaining strength in core disciplines while simultaneously supporting research at the intersection of the natural, physical, and social sciences, as well as engineering. Research at these disciplinary edges holds great promise for addressing problems in energy, the environment, agriculture, materials, and manufacturing." Collins, AIBS president-elect and Virginia M. Ullman Professor of natural history and environment at Arizona State University, was the assistant director for biology at NSF when it, the Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of Health commissioned the NRC report.

The environmental sciences offer promising research opportunities. "Interdisciplinary research is advancing our basic understanding of challenges such as global change and global loss of biodiversity and suggesting ways in which we might mitigate these changes," Collins testified. "NSF supported sensing systems in the Long Term Ecological Research Network and in the proposed National Ecological Observatory Network are designed to gather enormous quantities of data continuously. These networks of sensors, computers, and people promise to transform how we test basic ecological theory and apply the results."

As this research matures, Collins advised, researchers need new tools. Fast, highly accurate molecular techniques for identifying species will be important, as will efficient computer algorithms for analyzing, visualizing, and storing large quantities of data.

"Students entering these fields must be skilled in quantitative and computational methods, [and] understand how to draw on multiple disciplines to address problems," Collins said.

Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (MI), a PhD physicist and the panel's ranking Republican, said he is still getting his head around the report's recommendations. He told a story about a friend who, after receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics, decided that the important problems are in the biological sciences. Unfortunately, Ehlers noted, his friend has had less impact in biology than his friend anticipated, highlighting the need to support the development of young scientists. It may be better to prepare young scientists to work in more than one field, rather than expecting a scientist to master one field before working in another.

Keith Yamamoto, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Life Sciences and professor of cellular and molecular pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco, alluding to the long wait many scientists must endure before receiving their first grant, told the subcommittee that increasing the training period for scientists is not the way to proceed. He suggested that new scientists should be grounded in one discipline but able to work and communicate with colleagues from other fields.

Although the subcommittee hearing was a signal that lawmakers are interested in the recommendations outlined in A New Biology, it remains to be seen whether the scientific community is ready to embrace the report's findings. Moreover, are the federal agencies that fund scientific research and education prepared to implement the recommendations?

BioScience 60: 684
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.5

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2010_06.htmlScience Advice in the Statestag:www.aibs.org,2010:/washington-watch208.290872010-05-27T19:01:15Z2010-06-01T18:37:20Z ]]>
Julie Palakovich CarrIn 2006 this column posed the question, "Where are all the state science advisers?" With states challenged to make more decisions about investments in research, science education, and tech-based industry, author Gillian Andres asked, Who is advising the governors? She found that few US states had science advisers within the governor's office. An informal survey conducted by the AIBS Public Policy Office in July 2006 found that just six states (Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia) had identifiable positions. A handful of other states, including Kansas, had had science advisers in the past, and about half received advice from science and technology advisory boards. Unlike science advisers, however, these boards generally address narrower issues, such as science education and fostering ties between academia and industry.

Since 2006, progress has been slow but steady. The governors of Ohio and Wisconsin appointed science advisers. Massachusetts created two advisory bodies to inform science education and ocean management in the state. Two recent reports also drew attention to the issue. A 2008 report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and a 2007 report from the National Governors Association and Pew Center on the States considered the options for providing science advice to states—ranging from science advisers in the governor's office to state academies of science. These reports concluded that regardless of its structure, scientific expertise should be accessible to state governments in order to help officials foster innovation, make sound investments in public-private partnerships, and formulate public policy.

A strong case can be made, however, for individual science advisers. "If you have a science adviser sitting in the governor's office, you have a person who is hearing everything that's going on all the time, not just in science, but in transportation and homeland security and health and education and everything else," said Thomas Bowles, science adviser to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D), at an NAS meeting on the topic. "And where appropriate, you can jump in and say, 'Wait a minute, science ought to have some say in this.... We have a way to help you.'"

Although states have been slow to hire science advisers, climate change advisory boards have been springing up across the country. At least 32 states have formed such bodies to evaluate the risks of climate change and make recommendations for mitigating and adapting to climate impacts. Composed of representatives of state agencies, academia, industry, and other interest groups, these task forces are often disbanded after their final report is completed, making it difficult for a state to update its climate action plan as climate science progresses. One exception is Alaska's Climate Change sub-cabinet, formed by then-governor Sarah Palin (R) to advise the governor's office on the preparation and implementation of a state climate change strategy. According to Larry Hartig, sub-cabinet chair, Alaska's strategy is dynamic and changes with the state of climate science: "My hope is the climate change strategy will be a living document reflecting the best knowledge on the effects of climate change in Alaska."

Despite the benefits of implementing science advisory boards, some states have elected to do away with these bodies. Idaho Governor C. L. "Butch" Otter (R) disbanded his state's Science and Technology Advisory Council in 2008. In 2005, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) targeted a quarter of his state's advisory commissions for termination, including the Science and Technology Advisory Council, to save money and reduce bureaucracy.

Science advisers are also susceptible to political influence, especially when appointed by a governor: Science advisers have no job security after an election. However, the 37 gubernatorial elections this November provide an opportunity to increase the number of science advisers in state governments. For better or worse, elections are a chance to elevate the status of science within state governments and to encourage newly elected, or reelected, governors to add science advisers to their administrations.

"States, like the federal government, are grappling with many issues where science expertise is crucial," said Don Waller, professor and chair of the biological aspects of conservation major at the University of Wisconsin. "Scientists are trained to approach problems creatively and objectively—they enjoy looking at problems from many points of view. But states do not have the same staff or resources as the federal government has to respond to demands for scientific expertise. Recruiting a distinguished science adviser, or science advisory committee, represents a very cost-effective way to add that expertise."

Julie Palakovich Carr (jpal...@aibs.org) is an AIBS public policy associate.

BioScience 60: 420
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.6.5

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2010_02.htmlStimulating Science: One Year After the Recovery Acttag:www.aibs.org,2010:/washington-watch208.271662010-02-11T16:06:52Z2010-02-01T18:11:08Z ]]>
Julie Palakovich CarrA year ago, as the US economy was on the brink of meltdown, Congress and President Obama enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; PL 111-5). The $787-billion economic stimulus promised a new future for America, a future that not only brought economic growth and jobs but also addressed society's most pressing issues: education, human health, infrastructure, and clean energy. The act included more than $24 billion for federal science programs, much of which was designated for research and development (R&D). These funds were intended to create or save jobs by directly supporting researchers and student fellows and spurring the manufacturing of scientific instrumentation and equipment, as well as initiating the repair and construction of research facilities. One year later, stimulus funds have been used to address a backlog of scientific needs and to usher in a new age of science. The question now, however, is: What will happen to our scientific enterprise in 2011, when the ARRA funds have been spent?

The stimulus outlined ambitious goals for federal science agencies. The National Science Foundation (NSF) aimed to support 40,000 researchers, educators, postdoctoral scholars, and students with its $3 billion of ARRA funding, including $2 billion for "high-risk, potentially transformative research proposals" that were already in hand. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) planned to create or save 50,000 jobs with its $10.4 billion in ARRA funds, half of which has already been spent. Congress directed other agencies to address deferred projects, such as research facility maintenance and management activities, that have resulted from years of stagnant or declining budgets. The Agricultural Research Service, NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the US Geological Survey, the NIH, and others will collectively spend more than $1.2 billion for federal research facility repairs and construction.

Addressing past budget shortfalls is also the goal at the NSF and NIH, where much of the stimulus funding for R&D is supporting quality research proposals that had gone unfunded because of empty agency coffers. The NSF, whose agency-wide grant proposal success rate has hovered around 22 percent for years, has already surpassed its goal to award 4000 additional grants in 2009 and 2010. Even with the bolus of cash, however, some scientists still view funding at the NIH in short supply, after dealing with a 20 percent proposal success rate for much of the past decade.

For example, researchers submitted more than 20,000 applications for about 200 to 400 NIH Challenge Grants. This high demand for grants may spell disaster in 2011 when ARRA funds have been allocated, warns Francis Collins, director of the NIH. Collins told Science: "It's likely to be a pretty tough year...not only because one has to worry about what the NIH base [budget] can be, but a large number of Challenge Grants that didn't get funded are going to come back as R01s [NIH's basic research grants]. So the number of applications is expected to be quite high."

Others are concerned about the future of the young researchers and graduate students who are supported by the stimulus. The NSF plans to fund at least 2400 new investigators and 220 professional science master's students, the NIH directed approximately $100 million to recruit up to 117 new faculty at academic institutions, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science (DoE Science) also funded research fellowships. "While this generous increase in funding is very promising, we need continued financial support not only for young investigators, but also to bolster the entire US research enterprise," said Stacy L. Gelhaus, chair of the National Postdoctoral Association Board of Directors.

For the agencies included in the America COMPETES (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act of 2007 (NSF, NIST, and DoE Science), prior congressional pledges offer greater hope for the future. The COMPETES Act authorized a doubling of these agencies' budgets over a 10-year period, a goal the president has committed to meet by 2016. Other science agencies, however, may once again struggle in a post-ARRA world, especially if annual appropriations are not adjusted to support investments spawned by the stimulus.

"The issue becomes not just what are we investing in, but how are we spreading out the investments," said Nadine Lymn, director of public affairs at the Ecological Society of America. "The potential pitfall is that if sustained and predictable funding doesn't come through once ARRA ends, graduate students and other young researchers will be hit hard, and advances in research needed to address critical areas such as climate change and infectious disease will once again be curtailed."

Julie Palakovich Carr (jpal...@aibs.org) is an AIBS public policy associate.

BioScience 60: 101
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.2.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2009_12.htmlA Research and Education Agenda for Biology?tag:www.aibs.org,2009:/washington-watch208.267352010-02-11T16:17:08Z2009-12-01T20:04:27Z ]]>
Robert E. GroppFor some time, biologists have argued that a greater federal investment in biological research and education is required to move science forward and solve urgent societal problems. Argu­ably, this call has been heard, but a response has been muted by the lack of a clear articulation of need from the scientific community. However, recent efforts from within the community suggest that biologists might be attempting to define plans that will advance science and solve real-world problems.

"Plants are central to the future of scientific discovery, human well-being, and the sustainable use and preservation of the world's natural resources," says Andrea Kramer, executive director of the US Office of Botanical Gardens Conservation International. Yet, Kramer and others warn that federal agencies have failed to make investments in research and training that will drive discovery and inform decisionmaking. Kramer and colleagues recently convened academic scientists, government managers, and representatives from nongovernmental organizations. The meeting, held at the Chicago Botanic Garden, assessed the nation's botanical capacity.

"The project itself was prompted by anecdotal reports that botanical capacity was declining in many sectors," Kramer says, including education and training and research infrastructure; moreover, there is a lack of qualified candidates for government positions, and fewer academic botany departments to produce qualified scientists. "Botany departments at universities [are] being subsumed into more general or interdisciplinary departments and subsequently losing resident expertise as professors retire," warns Kramer.

The issues that prompted the botanical capacity summit are not new, and present a challenge to federal policymakers struggling to invest historically limited resources in programs that must support a range of scientific fields while solving societal problems. There is a lack of disciplinary strength—too few qualified organismal biologists—according to many participants at the Chicago conference. A growing stack of reports, however, asserts that there is a need for scientists with the skills and training to work in interdisciplinary teams. This, in short, is a recommendation in two reports released this year: Transitions and Tipping Points in Complex Environmental Systems, published by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and A New Biology for the 21st Century, published by the National Research Council (NRC).

Former NSF assistant director for biology James Collins described the Tipping Points report earlier this year: "The...focus on environmental complexity and the need to understand how our social systems integrate with the rest of Earth's systems is an important message. Research at the interface of natural and human systems forms the underpinnings for the adaptation and mitigation strategies needed for a changing planet."

Scientists cannot continue to study the components of environmental systems in isolation from each other, according to Susan Stafford, of the Department of Forest Resources at the University of Minnesota and chair of the NSF committee that authored Tipping Points.

Kramer agrees that interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary for progress, but questions what will happen if too many programs become dominated by interdisciplinary researchers. "Rather than focusing on specific disciplines that should be integrated, what is lacking is training in effective communication skills that are translatable beyond the realm of academia, as well as training in effective collaboration," argues Kramer.

The NSF and NRC reports press the need to invest in biological and environmental research. Some scientists who have read the reports find them to be refreshing. They call for interdisciplinary research and skills development, but recognize that these efforts require a strong foundation of disciplinary research. The NRC report, for example, references the importance of organismal biology and evolution for solving environmental, food, energy, and health problems.

The NRC report, which some have described as biology's call to action, or "moon shot," argues that a blend of research and new funding models should be implemented to achieve the ambitious goals proposed in the nearly 100-page document. Although the NRC neglected to place a price tag on its proposal or to outline a government engine that should be used to drive a "New Biology," the authors have been clear that a multiyear commitment and new funding—substantial resources beyond existing program budgets—are required. Some familiar with the plan speculate that an investment of $50 billion over the next 10 years is required.

Although $50 billion is significant, even in Washington, DC, a question worth asking is what the cost would be if the nation fails to build a research infrastructure that can deliver safe and nutritious food, functional ecosystem services, cleaner and sustainable energy, and quality, personalized medicine.

Robert E. Gropp (rgr...@aibs.org) is director of the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 59: 932
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2009_11.htmlTurning the Tide on Aquatic Invaderstag:www.aibs.org,2009:/washington-watch208.253992010-02-11T18:39:42Z2009-11-01T18:58:46Z ]]>
Julie Palakovich CarrPorts in the United States are among the busiest in the world—ships made more than 60,000 port calls here in 2008. Along with the 2.3 billion metric tons of goods moved through these ports were untold numbers of aquatic hitchhikers, transported in ballast water and residual sediment in ballast tanks. Ballast water, loaded aboard to improve ship stability during a voyage, transports as many as 3000 to 10,000 different species, including invasive species such as zebra mussels, green crabs, algae, and plankton, as well as disease-causing bacteria and viruses. When ships reach their destinations and release this ballast water, they also release nonnative species in ports around the world. Beyond the ecological impacts of these aquatic invaders are the costs they inflict on the economy: Every year these hitchhikers are responsible for the loss of billions of dollars. Zebra mussels alone cause $1 billion in damages each year in the United States. Although the scientific community, environmentalists, policymakers, port managers, and shippers agree that the discharge of ballast water should be regulated, a consensus about which agency should be granted regulatory authority has proven elusive.

Many see the US Coast Guard (USCG) as the logical choice. As a federal agency authorized by Congress to regulate ballast water management, the USCG can enforce a national standard for domestic and foreign ships that use American ports. Indeed, since 1993, the USCG has required ocean-going vessels entering the Great Lakes to exchange their ballast water at least 200 nautical miles offshore, or to retain their ballast while in the lakes.

For the last five years, the USCG has been working to create a mandatory national program for ballast water management. In August, the agency released a draft rule that would require the exchange or treatment of ballast water for almost all ballast-carrying vessels operating in US waters. The program, which would be implemented in two phases, would require ships to meet certain performance standards for the con­centrations of living organisms in their ballast water. The interim performance standard would require ships to reduce the concentration of living organisms in their ballast water by 80 percent; the final standard is potentially a thousand times more stringent.

According to David Lodge, professor of biology at the University of Notre Dame, this is an "essential and long overdue step." However, Lodge says, "the Coast Guard's effectiveness measures refer to the magnitude of reductions in the concentrations of organisms in discharged ballast water, not to the outcome that is most important: the reduction in new invasions." He adds that the policy could be strengthened by "coupling it with an invasive species monitoring policy. Without meaningful surveillance for new invasions, we don't have enough information to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of ballast water policies."

Uncertainty regarding the relationship between the number of organisms released through ballast water and the potential for new invasions has led several states to create their own ballast water discharge policy for their coastal waters. Regulations in California, Ha­waii, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington vary widely, resulting in a mosaic of rules that shippers must follow. California's are the most stringent: By 2020, no ship will be able to discharge ballast water that contains living organisms.

Adding to the confusion are regu­lations adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Although not yet in force, the IMO performance standard is comparable to the USCG's interim standard. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been ordered by a district court to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of ballast water in the United States.

In response to this jurisdictional muddle, some members of Congress have called for a unified national requirement for ballast water management. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Senator Carl Levin (D–MI) testified: "I believe that we need to enact legislation that will require ballast water discharge management...as soon as possible. I support establishing a strong national ballast water technology standard for
all ships."

In 2008, the House of Representatives did just this, passing legislation that establishes strong treatment standards so that, by 2015, no ballast water discharged into US waters will contain living organisms. The Senate has yet to pass its own legislation. For some senators, it is a matter of state sovereignty—a federal regulation or law preempts a state's right to control its coasts and waters. For instance, California's regulation is almost a thousand times more stringent than the IMO standards. On the other hand, the shipping industry fears that allowing each state to set its own ballast water management regime creates too heavy a regulatory burden.

This debate is far from over. The USCG is accepting comments on its draft rule until 4 December, but a final rule could take years. The EPA is also reconsidering its stance on the issue. Meanwhile, potentially invasive species continue to arrive by the boatload.

Julie Palakovich Carr (jpal...@aibs.org) is a public policy associate with AIBS.

BioScience 59: 830
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.4

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2009_10.htmlStem Cells: Growth and Development...in Policytag:www.aibs.org,2009:/washington-watch208.253982010-02-11T18:45:35Z2009-10-01T22:06:47Z ]]>
Jenna JadinMany scientists and patient advocates cheered earlier this summer when the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released new guidelines for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. The guidelines came after President Obama's March 2009 executive order lifting the restrictions on federal support for research using embryonic stem cells.

Obama's directive revoked the Bush administration's restrictions and funding ban on hESC research, which had limited scientists to using only 21 approved cell lines out of about 700 in existence. The directive also ordered the NIH to issue new guidelines for hESC research, which were released in July 2009. These new guidelines specify that NIH funding can be provided for research on hESCs derived from human embryos "that were created using in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes [but] were no longer needed for this purpose," and were donated by individuals who were fully informed about embryo treatment and gave their voluntary, written consent to use the embryos for research. The guidelines also stipulate that there can be no finan­cial inducements for embryo donations, and that NIH-funded research must remain separate from privately funded research. Additionally, the NIH will establish a working group of scientists and ethicists to review existing cell lines, determine their eligibility for federal funding, and post those hESCs eligible for federal funds in an online registry.

The presidential directive greatly expands the research potential in this field, but Obama noted in his remarks about the order that the "full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated." Many advocates of stem cell research agree: Much more stem cell research will take place, yet much more policy work still awaits action.

The spotlight is currently on the NIH working group. This is because until the NIH determines which cell lines are eligible for federal funding, hESC research remains on hold and, as of early September 2009, the NIH registry was still empty. Alan Smith, senior research scientist at Stemina Biomarker Discov­ery (a meta­bolomics company in Madison, Wisconsin), says that this void in the registry is a major concern for industry because it is slowing efforts to build new collaborations with other companies that are using yet-to-be-approved cell lines and to spur innovations in stem cell research. It is unclear when new stem cell lines will be entered into the registry—no timeline has been announced—but some researchers are concerned that the addition of the new lines may take years.

Other pressing policy issues remain. Some analysts have suggested that the government focus on developing a coa­lition among all the entities that work on stem cells, perhaps by supporting the formation of geographic in­novation hubs. Such a large-scale collaboration between universities and industries could be transformative for the field of regenerative medicine. Other experts, such as Jonathan Moreno, a senior fellow at the Center for American Prog­ress, believe that the next grand policy challenge will be to develop guidelines for safe human trials. The pharmaceutical company Geron was set to begin the first-ever human clinical trial of stem cell therapy on spinal cord injury patients in August. However, in the last round of animal trials, researchers found a larger-than-expected occurrence of cysts, and the US Food and Drug Administration halted the trial. Moreno argues that stem cell advocates ought to proceed to clinical trials with caution, as human trials with tragic results would cause a change in the tide of public support for stem cell research.

Proponents of stem cell research are hopeful that the Obama administration policy will allow US scientists to remain leaders in stem cell science and technology. More research should soon be eligible for federal funding, and making more lines available for research, as Smith says, will "open up the vast range of hES lines derived from genetically diverse embryos." Stem cell advocates remain hopeful that the pace of research will accelerate as scientists collaborate and eliminate some of the delays associated with past requirements for separate and dedicated stem cell research laboratories, equipment, and personnel. Many believe that once the public sees the first positive results from hESC research, much of the tension surrounding the stem cell debate will disappear, and stem cells will truly grow.

BioScience 59: 744
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.5

]]>
]]>
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2009_09.htmlDebate over Science Funding Heats Up in Canadatag:www.aibs.org,2009:/washington-watch208.253972009-12-03T11:45:53Z2009-09-01T18:50:43Z ]]>
Adrienne Froelich SponbergTwo years ago, the Canadian government launched a new strategy to improve the country's scientific competitiveness by, among other things, promoting partnerships with industry and improving scientific infrastructure. In June, the government trumpeted its success in Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage: Progress Report 2009. But however pleased the government may be with its progress, researchers are becoming increasingly vocal in their dissent, arguing that the government's policy is missing the mark and threatening the future of the country's scientific enterprise.

The progress report touts the country's largest-ever investment in science and technology, including $4.5 billion for infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). So why are researchers upset? A primary concern is that the greater support for infrastructure displaces funds for the researchers who use the equipment. In Canada's Budget 2009, funding was cut by 5 percent for the country's three granting agencies: the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

John Smol, professor at Queen's University and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, says that the funds supplied by those agencies—for NSERC discovery grants, for example—offer the government the "most bang for the buck." While directed funding certainly has its place in government-funded science, funding programs that allow scientists' research to progress freely are more in line with how science actually works, he says. "Of the 10 papers I am most proud of, I don't think I anticipated a single one of them in the grant I wrote funding that work."

Since the budget cuts were announced, the outcry against the government's policies has become more vehement. Academic groups such as the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) have voiced concerns over the funding cuts, noting that "labs and research stations may be better equipped but are forced to cut back or close because they do not have sufficient funding for staff and operational costs." The editors of the CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) criticized the Canadian economic stimulus plan (Budget 2009) in an editorial: "In saying yes to deficits and stimulus, yet being lukewarm to science, the un­mistakable message from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is that science is unimportant in Canada's economy." Several grassroots efforts protesting the government's policies have emerged as well, including an open letter to the government, "Don't Leave Canada Behind," which has gathered more than 2000 signatures, and "Protect Science Funding in Canada," a 3400-member Facebook group.

But not everyone thinks there is cause for complaint. In an opinion piece in the National Post, Michael Bliss, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, says that many of the community's complaints are unfounded, and scientists risk further backlash if they continue to bite the hand that feeds them. "The danger is that politicians, instead of caving in, will respond by washing their hands of Canada's science community."

The budget may not have drawn as much criticism had it not been for the inevitable comparisons with Canada's southern neighbor. During the Bush administration, Canadians prided themselves on having the more comparatively favorable environment for science. Indeed, between 2002 and 2007, the number of university professors and assistants who moved from the United States to work in Canada increased by 27 percent, reported Elizabeth Church and Daniel LeBlanc in Canada's Globe and Mail (27 January 2009). But with the election of President Barack Obama, the tables have turned. In his inaugural address, Obama vowed to "restore science to its rightful place," and he swiftly set about instituting a string of new policies favorable to science, including a massive infusion of funds to federal science agencies through the economic stimulus package.

The turnabout with regard to funding raises concerns that top Canadian researchers will leave for the United States. In an April 2009 poll commissioned by the CAUT and the Canadian Federation of Students, two-thirds of Canadians surveyed admitted apprehension about Canada's ability to attract and retain researchers, given reductions in research funding.

But Smol is unsure whether a "brain drain" should be a major concern: "Researchers are mobile people by nature," he says, and there has always been movement between the two countries. Additionally, programs such as the Canada Research Chairs and the CFI—both of which receive new funding under the 2009 budget—have been successful in recruiting talent from abroad. Rather, Smol says, the biggest problem Canadian scientists face is that "science has never been able to capture the imagination of politicians." Until that happens, the debate over Canada's science policies will most likely rage on.

Adrienne Froelich Sponberg (sponberg@aslo.org) is the director of public affairs and coeditor of the Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin for the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.